Iconoclast,

I agree - good summary.  Wrt to the apparently better separation of the curves at 18 months, though, remember that 250 MACE had not occurred at that point (or the trial would have ended sooner) so I think your estimation that the results would have been significant at that point is optimistic. Trend is good but sample size is too small. What that rather ragged curve most likely represents is sampling variation due to small sample size. That is supported by the rather large change that was achieved in the P value by the exclusion of few patients.  Sample size was just too small. 

Yes, the results support huge potential (especially the MACE reduction in the CKD patient subgroup) but we needed more than that at this point.  An 18% RRR that was significant would have been one thing, this is another.  The P values for the additional tests are not adjusted, they would be nowhere near significant if adjusted properly for multiple tests.  Unless there is something very positive on the business side of things on Monday, the stock is going to suffer greatly next week. This is good science, not bad results, has great potential, etc, etc but it is not a 4 billion $ company. 

I'm hopeful here in the longterm, but this does not look like a drug that is going to market yet.  Here's hoping for a partner or two with deep pockets.

Jupe